Impression managment.
In interactions or performances the involved parties may be audience members and performers simultaneously; the actors usually foster impressions that reflect well upon themselves and encourage the others, by various means, to accept their preferred definition. Goffman acknowledges that when the accepted definition of the situation has been discredited, some or all of the actors may pretend that nothing has changed, provided that they find this strategy profitable to themselves or wish to keep the peace. For example, when a person attending a formal dinner—and who is certainly striving to present himself or herself positively—trips, nearby party-goers may pretend not to have seen the fumble; they assist the person in maintaining face. Goffman avers that this type of artificial, willed credulity happens on every level of social organization, from top to bottom. From Wiki
Nothing new under the sun! Trust those sociologists to have kept this as their secret (I joke). The problem is I have never studied sociology and I've been trying to describe and explore this 'Factor X/compelling explanation' thing from the individual's perspective (psychology) unable to work out how to add that it is a 'social' phenomenon. Impression management (the compelling explanations) made me feel as if Kit was a performer and I was supposed to be in the role of audience every time he either mentioned 'coffee fuelled discussions, or how social interaction destroys the therapeutic relationship'. The statements are valid, the context would be almost right, but something was off. I admit there are other ways to interpret, but for now I'm going to follow where this line of thought leads me.
Clearly I wasn't seeing myself as an audience. I felt as if perception management was taking place. He had said that therapy is an interaction between people, but without the emotional information from Kit I was bedazzled and blinded each time Kit 'used' any of his set pieces. I'd thought that therapy is one of those rare spaces where perception management is left outside the door. Certainly there is something of a performance about therapy, there are set pieces; the closing of the door to symbolize the confidentiality of the conversation, the fact that talking to a therapist is odd because the dialogue is centred on the client's 'content' - there isn't any 'oh yes, something like that happened to me!' no compare and contrasting of our realities'. Also ending after 'an hour' that is 50 minutes, and the return a week later. The performance doesn't create inauthenticity though,
These repetitions are minor disruptions of normality within a client's life that mirror the movement and rhythm central to ritual and ceremony.
Ceremony is one thing, but for me, theatre is quite another.
Theatre is delivered to the audience, it entertains, and the audience does not participate directly. Ceremony requires participation and is designed to heighten an awareness of change, and in so doing it changes people...The term liminality is especially appropriate for ceremony.
So (taking from the lecture about erotic transfer) when a therapist experiences erotic feelings for the person attending therapy with them, and it is reciprocated, then talking about it could be either ceremony or theatre. The two forms of performance lead to a very different type of energy exchange.
Kit went for theatre, impression management.
Theatre, requires a power exchange, the audience gives their power in the form of attention, and their subtle agreement to believe in the play. The actor projects a role to convince the audience. Therapy as ceremony is structured to enable power exchange in this case through ethical considerations, but the real difference is in mutuality; shared action, shared feeling, cooperation. Power is not called upon, nor does it oppress in mutuality. It is acknowledged, embodied and respected. Did Kit draw upon a background in theatre, as he tried to convince his Druid client (me) that she had paid money to see a good therapist enact good therapy? And his client, being as she (me) is a Druid, expected, needed and wanted ceremony?
To square the circle, if I'd heard the scripted statements as they were intended by the actor, as flourishes and set pieces intended to spark specific emotional responses, there would have been a power exchange as I felt the intended emotion (gosh I hadn't realised how useful an education in BDSM has been in enabling me to make sense of this!). The scripted repetitions were not as powerful as the minx moment - but I think I was supposed to feel them, rather than hear. Theatre becomes ceremony...when I feel the reciprocal role and step into it, then both people become more essentially and completely themselves.
To summarize, the energy exchange created by 'theatre' causes engagement. There is now a liminal gap, reality is mutable at this moment. There is a flow of energy back and forth between actor and audience...there is a degree of mutuality on a good night. I think Kit and I were usually very able players, good at creating this. In theatre, audience engagement can only go so far though. My honesty broke the rules, I'd invited him to be himself, to stop acting. I think it is reasonable to believe that Eros was an energy Kit had accidentally used, as an actor and didn't have clue how to embody it safely. Meanwhile Eros is an energy I am secure in embodying. To be given the message that I was out of order made no sense to me. Out of order would be to enact Eros to get an emotional reaction from the 'audience' and then for me to say that it wasn't intended or really felt - that would be epistemic injustice, lets just call it gaslighting.
I was talking last night with my son about his relationship with his dad when he was in psychosis. The parallel and connection is that Eros or psychosis are extreme emotional states. People in extreme emotional states seek mutuality, and as any good therapist knows, mutuality doesn't mean you both feel the same thing. Mutuality means that the person who isn't in the extreme emotional state will do their very best to demonstrate respect and radical acceptance, through compassionate language, by 'holding space' - which is remaining calm and kind, 'holding' your own emotions whilst feeling the full impact of the other's feelings.
Eros is different to psychosis (!) as an extreme state because there is a distinct probability that Eros has been brought into being by something seeking integration within both of you. As a therapist you are in the privileged position of truly feeling the pain of the past reconfiguring into this present moment. It is as if Eros is a gravitational field suddenly changing chaos into order. At this point as far as I can see, if the therapist can't access that part of themselves, and wishes to be only an actor, therapy is over. Freud wins. The scissors are red, the feathers fall like winter snow and the warmth of the blood seeps into the earth. Yet the sorrow cannot be washed away. Eros cries in despair, a wingless, and ordinary wounded casualty of an imagination that hates itself.
The alternative is far closer to ceremony because it requires liminality, and boundaries that contain - rather than block or prevent. If the cause of Eros is a mutual wound, then once that has been felt and understood (this feels like profound relational depth) Eros has done His work and He will depart, leaving both of you transformed, Again Brian Thorne is the person to go to to learn more about this. His breath-taking courage is my inspiration - not everyone agrees with me about Brian Thorne though!
But as I keep saying, therapy took me to the gates of Death, pretty sure I have the authority to say that this is a bad thing. That is not what therapy is for!
Kit is intelligent, kind, a person who does not wish to do harm,
Yet he certainly harmed me...so, go figure!
